PART 4 (3'43")
- 4. The Solution ((( Constructive Alignment ))):
So the million dollar question is: how do we get students to learn what we want them to? More precisely, how do we get a student's activity to match our intention as a teacher?
The answer is "constructive alignment". That is, to clearly state the learning objectives of a course in terms of The SOLO Taxonomy, to make the exam measure precisely those, and tell this to the students. And, to chose appropriate teaching/learning activities to train these skills and competences during the course.
The constructive alignment theory was developed by John Biggs.
Let's first have a look at an "unaligned course". We have the teacher's intention, the student's activity, and the exam's assessment in play. The teacher has an intention, let's suppose he wants the students to be able to explain, relate, prove, and apply. And now suppose the exam measures something else, for example, the ability to memorize and to describe. In this case, Robert will focus only on the skills required for the test, disregarding the teacher's intentions. This is called "dealing with the test".
> So, do we have to know about this for the exam?
> Okay, here's the thing. I know what they're asking, but I figure, and Jim also told me, that if I memorize the headlines and skim through the first chapters, I should be okay for the exam.
Now, let's have a look at an "aligned course". Here the teacher has taken great care in making the exam explicitly conform to his intentions so that the exam now measures the ability to explain, relate, prove, and apply. Here there is no short-cut for Robert, whatever happens, he just ends up learning what the teacher is intending.
> So, these are the course objectives, and also what you'll be expected to be able to do at the exam - and what my exam will measure. Furthermore, this is what we're going to reflect upon during the course, and what you'll be trained in doing during the entire course.
A level three teacher has a student-learning focus; this is the highest level in the three levels of thinking about teaching.
> So, now I'd like to give you three minutes to prepare an argument for why this aspect is syntactic, and not semantic.
Now we are in a position to actually define good teaching. Good teaching is getting most students to use the higher level cognitive processes that the more academic students use spontaneously. Or, you might say, teach so that Robert behaves like Susan.
|  
|